From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60604252157m50da62dardb98759d7c4152da@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:57:08 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 46543ae2-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 The main reason that intel and other C compilers implement gcc extensions is because there is a lot of software that relies on them, like the linux kernel for instance. On 4/25/06, erik quanstrom wrote: > gcc 4 can be c99 compliant. > > gcc '--std=3Dc99' $* > > but that doesn't mean that they removed the extensions. > > linux is dependent on inline assembly, for example. (i'm not sure why th= ey > think it necessiary.) so a number of their extensions won't go away. in= fact, > other compilers, like tcc, feel compelled to replicate gnu extensions. > > - erik > > On Tue Apr 25 15:02:51 CDT 2006, cross@math.psu.edu wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:02:30PM +1000, Andy Newman wrote: > > > I like this quote from the glibc FAQ... > > > > > > 1.2. What compiler do I need to build GNU libc? > > > > > > ... A lot of extensions of GNU CC are used to increase portabili= ty ... > > > > I remember a year or two picking up a Linux rag at the train station on= the > > way back from somewhere. They were talking about gcc 4 or something in= it > > and saying how they were hoping to do away with a lot of GNU extensions= by > > stricter adherence to the language standards in the compiler itself; I = guess > > that work got buried. Then again, this was a cursory read on the Subwa= y, > > and I'm slightly dyslexic, so maybe read it the opposite way it was me= ant. > > > > - Dan C. > > >